GLG
Well-Known Member
Fraser River stocks there pal... remember Cohen Commission?
Get the feedlots off the migration routes....
It's just that simple... pal
Farmed and Dangerous...
- Thread starter Andrew P
- Start date
Fraser River stocks there pal... remember Cohen Commission?
Get the feedlots off the migration routes....
It's just that simple... pal
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Seems like the complete opposite is happening elsewhere. Look at this. Astonishing and remarkable. Record pink runs never seen before in systems once wiped out that have been been in recovery projects for the last bunch of years. How is this possible given that all these fish go past salmon farms. Interesting read but not for the dfo haters. The document has DFO written on it so easily dismissible by some here.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sep-pmvs/pink2013-rose2013-eng.html
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Here are a few scientific papers on the detrimental effects of salmon feed lots. There are many many more out there documenting the problems not just on the Pacific Coast but all over the world. Have a read.
Not that it would do any good. Having been indoctrinated in the "holy church" of the salmon industry, you will reject all this scientific evidence just like fundamentalists everywhere. Simply because of your chosen profession, you believe implicitly you know more than all these scientists put together, because your good book (aka industry propaganda) lays out the true faith which cannot be questioned,as practised by the "devout followers".
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/7/1162.short
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1672/3385.short
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641260500433531#.UmChURCZ5zN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M04-149.1#.UmCiLxCZ5zN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f10-105#.UmCiXBCZ5zN
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M07-042.1#.UmCirBCZ5zN
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Nowhere in this document does it say which way these fish migrate. If they go via the outside, through JDF strait, then their exposure to fish feed lots is very low. This recovery has happened for all the reasons stated in the paper, not because of the benign effects of salmon feed lots.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
So which way do they go? I was wrong to assume that they went north right away. At a basic level of observation(which is what I have been reduced to here) a point that can be taken from this is that these salmon runs recovered from an actions that do not include the removal of sites from the ocean. It is the product of efforts elsewhere other than the"smoking gun" salmon farm theory. And I might add that the results are fantastic and it will be interesting to see how these system responds to the presence of such returns in the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice links, LOL! I see now where you stand and are obtaining the information you want to believe.
Show me how salmon farms are doing more harm, here in BC, than overfishing,habitat loss, climate change, ocean acidification and basic human encroachment and greed. You can't and you know it; maybe time to start putting your obvious intelligence to more worthy thoughts about how to turn around this environmental mess we all have created.
So lets see, record pink returns this year and a huge Shuswap contingent sockeye return expected next year from 2010's record cycle.. yeah, salmon farms are impacting Pacific returns alright....
Salmon farming is here to stay in BC. For sure it needs to be monitored and IMO it is.
tubber
Well-Known Member
I've read every post on here regarding salmon farming since 2006. No one on here believes the above mentioned problems are not also detrimental to wild fish. In fact, rarely does anyone try to rank causal effects from most to least problematic. As you know Dave , the issues you point out happened on your watch. Clearly you are now trying to ameliorate your failures as a professional by shilling for an industry all would support if they would just get into tanks on dry land. A wasted life followed by a curious retirement, how sad. I hope you can golf or garden well, or at least have a child or two you are proud of. Sorry to be so personal, but you need to understand it's not too late for you to make a positive contribution to something/anything before you can't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
You point out, and we a know that there are many other factors today are negatively affecting wild salmon stocks, each of which has their own groups fighting to improve on all of them. Salmon farming has the potential to have catastrophic consequences that are potentiality unrecoverable. It's like playing Russian roulette with the future of suffering stocks(for the reasons that you mentioned); if a whole run is passing by an area that has a massive outbreak it could threaten the entire thing. Outbreaks can kill or cull MILLIONs of farmed fish as Mainstream's rebuttal points out is not not possible but has actually happened, and depending disease, could cross over to wild stocks and wipe out more than just salmon.
Like Russian roulette, runs get by the farms without incident and can have significant improvements because of efforts on the other factors affecting the fish, but it only takes one time to have serious consequences.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Andrew, the same possibilities exist in the wild. Look at these huge runs of pinks coming back now. Their all jammin in the rivers in high density multiplying viruses and diseases and in the worst posable place, where the egg drop and hatching happens arghhh. ITs the worst case scenario but its the natural way. The same opportunities exist in many different forms in the wild. I agree that salmon farms are different but in the reality of what going on is it any different that what happens in the wild? YOur right that it is only a matter of time but will it be the salmon farms fault are some other high density issue in the pacific natural or not?
wishiniwasfishin1
Well-Known Member
'YOur right that it is only a matter of time but will it be the salmon farms fault are some other high density issue in the pacific natural or not? '
Birdsnest,
That's like saying it is perfectly fine to drive hammered. You know that the chance of killing some is dramatically increased but it doesn't matter to you because there are many other ways for people to get killed on the road like speeders, people falling asleep at the wheel, dangerous driving condtions, etc.
Yes, all of these things do kill people as well but removing one identifiable and serious threat does help overall driving conditions and decreases the likelihood of a preventable tragedy...
Birdsnest,
That's like saying it is perfectly fine to drive hammered. You know that the chance of killing some is dramatically increased but it doesn't matter to you because there are many other ways for people to get killed on the road like speeders, people falling asleep at the wheel, dangerous driving condtions, etc.
Yes, all of these things do kill people as well but removing one identifiable and serious threat does help overall driving conditions and decreases the likelihood of a preventable tragedy...
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Your comment proves my case that you are a salmon feed lot fanatic. I do not “want to believe” these papers like some unsubstantiated rumours or hearsay. These are scientific papers by dozens of independent researchers published in reputable scientific journals. Independent science is the only truth, not industry propaganda, and the fact you choose not to believe all the scientific evidence proves my point. You are a fundamentalist exactly the same as those who refuse to believe all the overwhelming science telling us the earth is over 4 billion years old. It is self delusion enabled by a fixed world view that denies reality and classifies all scientists as "heretics".
So, in your world view if salmon feed lots do not “top the table” of threats then they are “ipso facto” benign and harmless?! No one is trying to develop a league table of threats here (except you which is of course a recognised industry diversionary tactic). We identify all the threats and attempt to deal with them – especially the local ones under our control. Getting the feed lots out of open ocean waters can be accomplished here and now locally. Climate change is a much bigger issue and itself contains a well funded “evidence denier” community which ignores all of the overwhelming science, just like you and your industry does!
Which specific pink runs were records and what were their migration paths? And how do you know the runs would not have been even bigger without salmon feed lots?
We don’t have the numbers for next year’s Shuswap sockeye run yet, so you are jumping the gun. And many of those sockeye migrate round the outside, via the Strait of JDF, away from the salmon feed lots. They certainly did in 2010 – there were a lot of them out there.
Finally the Skeena sockeye run collapsed this year. Salmon feed lots probably played a role in that one.
Wrong! Open net pen salmon feed lots are doomed and will be banned eventually. You are going to follow the same track as the tobacco industry, which only went down screaming and fighting, but it was defeated eventually. Your industry will be too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Really? Now who's jumping the gun ..
Thanks for this post, BN. I always appreciate a thoughtful, reasoned-out response which normally precludes the PR talking notes from the BCSFA.
To reply to your post: yes - you are entirely correct - Pacific salmon have had to deal with disease-causing vectors for many thousands of years, and they had adapted to most of them. Certain strains of IHN, VHS, etc have become endemic to certain populations over thousands of years and these species and populations have developed a certain immunity to them. During stressful events like spawning, sometimes these latent diseases get turned-on. Pacific salmon die after spawning, and as long as the virus is not vertically-transmitted (or transmitted to resident trout), the virus dies in it's terminal host. Then in the spring the juvies hatch and eventually travel to the ocean and grow and leave before the returning adults come back to spawn.
NOW enter the new development of the open net-pen industry with it's technology inappropriate to mitigating disease transfer to wild stocks right in the areas of high densities of returning adult salmon and/or high densities of outmigrating juvenile salmon (e.g. Discovery Islands and the Broughtons). These farms can and do magnify the potential for either wild adults and/or wild juveniles to encounter disease and parasite vectors and be affected by them. This is the real problem. There are dozens of papers detailing some of these impacts world-wide, where Englishman has provided links for some of them. To suggest that this is not a problem is disingenuous and misleading, and that attempt to discredit the science is initiated by the same PR firms employed to sell cigarettes to our youth.
As any society - we need an open an honest dialogue about what the risks are - the consequences - and the costs. That's where I am way beyond frustrated in having this conversation. What costs are we prepared to accept as a society so that shareholders in Norwegian Corporations can retire with their house on the hill?
I am frustrated because the government protects the industry and aids in this denial of communications - where they should be OUR representatives, using their skill set to provide early warning about potential effects, and forcing the companies to provide full disclosure. They don't. They enable the corruption to continue, and use the same PR talking notes developed by the same sociopaths.
We should be having an open conversation about what are the plume effects of disease-causing vectors are, and what the infection risks are when superimposed on large numbers of adult and juvenile salmon. we don't. Instead we are told that a 1 km circle is adequate precautionary protection to mitigate cultured-wild interactions.
We should have any ISA-suspect results immediately followed-up by re-testing of wild stocks. we don't. Instead the only OIE-certified lab - also the only independent one - shut down. Simon Jones refuses to fully comply with a court order and squashes peer-review publishing on the matter. We are then told that ISA does not exist in BC. End of story. Shut the F -up and quit looking is the message from CFIA.
These are not the actions of a government that supports it's people and their resources; nor the actions of competent, responsible professionals. This is not the government of a democracy - where many thousands of our young men died to protect in WWI and II. This is inexcusable, and criminal - traitorous actually.
This is why this debate is not only emotional, but acrimonious and seemingly endless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Agent, you realize that in one sentence you promote open honest dialogue then the next moment you go and hand pick the topics you want to discuss. What about my concerns about whats I honestly believe to be false?
Englishman plays the same card. One moment suggesting in this discussion that pinks are doing well for they may not take a northern rout. Then the next moment he is saying that skeena socks poor returns are likely tied to salmon farms anyways. WTF?
Back to the topic, you can thank films like salmon confidential and now this water brothers piece for fuelling the fire. Like agent says we need to have honest dialogue and information and these pieces are works of art crafted far a cause that lacks honesty. Hey but what the heck eh as the courts has stated with staniford case if you honestly believe what you are saying as true than you are not guilty of anything but this leaves the public guessing or mislead.
And the Dave bashing is not cool and does nothing to support honest dialog. Dave is not the dfo and the blood on his hands comments are so far out of whack I just dont know what to say. Sorry about those guys Dave, I guess is all I can say. The moderators are not going to say anything so the public who reads this stuff probably gets a poor impression of the sport fishing community that I am a part of. Embarrassing. Their website....whatever......probably some americans that own it.
Englishman plays the same card. One moment suggesting in this discussion that pinks are doing well for they may not take a northern rout. Then the next moment he is saying that skeena socks poor returns are likely tied to salmon farms anyways. WTF?
Back to the topic, you can thank films like salmon confidential and now this water brothers piece for fuelling the fire. Like agent says we need to have honest dialogue and information and these pieces are works of art crafted far a cause that lacks honesty. Hey but what the heck eh as the courts has stated with staniford case if you honestly believe what you are saying as true than you are not guilty of anything but this leaves the public guessing or mislead.
And the Dave bashing is not cool and does nothing to support honest dialog. Dave is not the dfo and the blood on his hands comments are so far out of whack I just dont know what to say. Sorry about those guys Dave, I guess is all I can say. The moderators are not going to say anything so the public who reads this stuff probably gets a poor impression of the sport fishing community that I am a part of. Embarrassing. Their website....whatever......probably some americans that own it.
BN - I "hand-picked" what I consider to be impediments to open dialogue and the proper oversight of the industry. It's what I have been dealing with for some years now - and it really hasn't gotten any better with harper. I don't see where I wasn't having an open, honest dialogue in my last post. I discussed differences in disease transfer with/without open net-pen interference. If you have additional points you want discussed or debated - feel free - that's what this discussion board is all about.
As far as the comments back to Dave - given his job was to consult with FN, and restest - which they didn't do wrt the ISA results in Cultus Lake - I'd say some of those critiques are appropriate. you really can't defend these unprofessional actions.
And Yes - those evil Americans infiltrated my mind and affected my ability to think...because there must be SOME reason us dumb Canucks don't get the standard industry talking notes from the BCSFA...must be mind control...arrgh! - struggling to resist... (insert ominous music here)
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Explain this Pal....
in the 70's and early 80's Coho smolt survival rates were 10 to 15%
Your industry shows up and the Coho smolt survival rates drop to less then 1%
In the 70's and early 80's Chinook smolt survival rates were 4 and 12%
Your industry shows up and now the Chinook smolt survival rate drop to 0.2 to 0.6%
I got those numbers from DFO....
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
In the 70s and early 80,s fish farming in BC was in its absolute infancy. I do not think that the industry really had allot of sites until the mid 80's. Not the answer you are expecting but certainly someone here can explain this better. I am sure agent can come up with the exact details but will he if it goes against his beliefs? Is it dishonest if he does not chime in here?
This link give a nice description of the history. Interesting actually. Take your glasses off. lol Also interesting to note the information about the salmon ranching about the time period you mention GLG. Ill leave it to one of you fellas to highlight that info tho I'm not sure you will.
http://tidescanada.org/wp-content/u...Hicks_-_The_History_of_Salmon_Aquaculture.pdf
We are palls! SWEET!
This link give a nice description of the history. Interesting actually. Take your glasses off. lol Also interesting to note the information about the salmon ranching about the time period you mention GLG. Ill leave it to one of you fellas to highlight that info tho I'm not sure you will.
http://tidescanada.org/wp-content/u...Hicks_-_The_History_of_Salmon_Aquaculture.pdf
We are palls! SWEET!
Chime! Not sure off the top of my head how many sites were established where, and with what biomass, and whether or not sea lice data was looked-at and all the other variables. Would take some time to put it together. Maybe CK or someone has that more readily available. I think the easier and more telling approach would be to look at ocean survival rates between North (no farms) and South (near farms) and compare. Can be done, will take some work - only if those damn Americans would get out of my head - I could do this....arrrgh...struggle
American Foods That Are Banned in Other Countries
Guess which food gets the top # 1 rating?
Yes... it's FARM-RAISED SALMON...!
Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries.
Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article.1
Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.
#1: Farm-Raised Salmon
If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans.
This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.
Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand
How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.
Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms. The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. Please realize that the vast majority of all salmon sold in restaurants is farm raised.
So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.
http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/10/10-american-foods-that-are-banned-in-other-countries
Guess which food gets the top # 1 rating?
Yes... it's FARM-RAISED SALMON...!
Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries.
Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article.1
Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.
#1: Farm-Raised Salmon
If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans.
This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.
Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand
How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.
Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms. The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. Please realize that the vast majority of all salmon sold in restaurants is farm raised.
So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.
http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/10/10-american-foods-that-are-banned-in-other-countries
Similar threads
